<DanC_lap> (Norm, which day
of the ftf are you minuting? likewise Dave?)

SW: Next telcon 20 March, JR to
scribe
... Regrets NM for 27 March, DO and DC for 20 March, NM at risk for 20
March

F2F recap

DO, NW: Went well

NM: We used to do code reviews on
a project I was on, and unless everyone, or almost everyone,
had actually read the code, the review was cancelled
... Sometimes at our meetings, I find myself thinking, in reply
to a comment, "I don't think you would have said that if you
had read the whole document". . .
... and this feels like a bit of a downer

<DanC_lap> (yes, it's
worthwhile to set clearer expectations about who is to read
what)

DO: But there are serious limitations
... 1) NS decls don't work for attributes
... 2) Default NS decl only works once per subtree, e.g. no
MathML inside SVG
... Since svg uses xlink:href, the first is a problem
... and the embedding problem looks bad also
... don't know why they made these restrictions
... Documents ways of doing [NS decls] in IE7 using the OBJECT
tag
... What do we do about this?
... What if the TAG sent a comment to the IE Team
... "Glad to see you're moving in this direction
... could you add full NS support, please?"
... We should not only ask HTML 5 WG to do what we need, but
the vendors as well

DC: DO, you could attend an HTML
WG telcon and ask MS themselves
... Some attention from TBL on the validator architecture
issue, which is good

HST: Question of clarification:
We are talking about HTML here, yes?

DO: Yes

HST: So I'm guessing that the
nesting constraint has to do with the empty tag issue: no way
to tell when embedding stops

DO: Don't know. Do know that you
can't use the XHTML namespace at all

NM: Where does media type feed in
to this story?

<Zakim> Norm, you wanted to
ask if this is beta-limitations or intended design or do we
know?

DO: I agree that we should check
on that

<noah> NM: In particular, do
we know whether if IE 8 gets application/xhtml+xml?

NW: Can't tell if this is just
for beta 1, not clear if this is it or we may get more?

DO: I think this is just what's
in beta 1, the feature set may evolve, but not sure

NM: At the show where this was
announced, this came in the context of IE 8's plan to default
to standards-compliant rendering
... that was a big deal, leading off the press conference, so I
don't think they'll go back on that

NM: Please be clear
that I do not speak at all for Microsoft.

NW: Interesting to find out for
sure about the NS stuff

NM: Not clear

<DanC_lap> (the SXSW crowd
was very happy about the IE8 default change)

<Norm> I sure hope XHTML
support exists and has standard XML namespace support.

SW: Feedback to browser vendors a
bad idea?

<noah> I'm just passing
on my understanding of what I thought I heard at the MIX
conference last week. We obviously should contact Microsoft if
we want to know what they've really announced and which parts
they view as commitments beyond the current IE 8 beta.

DC: I'm opposed -- we have a WG
for this

HT: This is not about
HTML 5, which is what the WG is aimed at. It's about the
existing HTML specs.

HT:It seems very
appropriate for W3C or TAG to say "this is interesting and
useful" or "not".

HT:It's not entirely
clear to me why we'd say that to the HTML 5 workgroup.

NM: But how are you supposed to
know you're looking at HTML 5?

DC: No signal, you're supposed to
assume 5

NM: OK, so the HTML 5 WG is
addressing the general question of what browsers should do with
everything that looks like HTML

DO: They are changing HTML 4

DC: They can't change the HTML 4
spec.
... It was locked in 1998

DO: So it's an add-on that is
intended to work with HTML 4

<noah>Specifically, I
asked Dan for a clarification as to whether HTML 5 documents
are distinguished by, say, an HTML 5 doctype. Dan said "no, you
are either a browser coded with knowledge of HTML 5 or not". I
then said "I think Dan is right: handling namespace prefixes in
such content is within the purvue of the HTML WG"

DO: I would certainly like to see
the HTML 5 WG do something about namespaces in HTML
... but IE8 is going to ship first, and we should try to get
them to do the right thing
... or in particular make sure that what they do doesn't hurt
more than it helps

DC: What I'm offering you is a
low-latency forum to achieve this

SW: I think more interaction of
the sort DC suggests would be good before we do anything

DO: What about asking the TAG to
come to an HTML 5 WG telcon?

HST: I don't think we're ready
for that, the TAG doesn't have an opinion on this proposal
yet

NM: I've been thinking a lot
about HTTP redirections
... A lot of the discussion of information resources is about
whether the term is well-defined
... I'm happy with it, because it captures a valuable aspect of
what you know when you get a repr. of an information
resource
... but it seemed to me on reflection that the problems we have
with repr. of e.g. me are similar to ones we have wrt repr. of
generic resources

NM: I've had some skeptical/this
doesn't help feedback, but no positive feedback yet
... I wrote it to be helpful, if it isn't, we shouldn't spend
time on it
... so we should only spend time on this if/when someone says
"yes, that's a useful starting point"

JR: I read through it, and I
think there's a lot of overlap with what the Health Care and
Life Sciences group have been looking at
... but we ended up in a very different place
... I think it would help to have some use cases in place

NM: I'm not pushing the solutions
I offered, so much as the scenarios. . .

DC: What's the thesis
statement?

<Stuart> As a quick summary:
the intuition is to acknowledge that due to conneg and just
general lack of consensus in the community, the current
deployed use of 200 isn't sufficiently consistent and reliable
for rigorous reasoning in the semantic Web.

NM: I commend in particular the
section labelled "Why Information Resource is not the right
abstraction"

JR: I hope AWWSW will look at
this

NM: That's not the same as the
TAG looking at it, given that if I'm right we might want to
change something in WebArch, whereas AWWSW is just trying to
formalize what we have already

JR: But I certainly expect that
once we've formalized things, we'll be feeding back on
problems